It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Does the U.S. Deserve a Chunk of Iraq's Oil Revenue?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 01:49 AM
Thanks, I absolutely agree, keep it up

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 02:01 AM
Well Gosh, we've done sooooo much for them, wouldn't it be kind of ungrateful of them if they didn't give us a cut?

I'm sure we can all draw some relevant correlation here between McBain and America. Here's a hint: Iraq is the Audience, the war is the joke, a rather poor joke constructed by a infantile muscle bound cretin who does not respond well to criticism.

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 09:00 AM
The money will never make it to the Iraqi people, and it sure as hell wont make to the American people. Basically, we're in the same boat AS the Iraqi people. Forget hanging Bush. Let's burn him at the stake instead.

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 09:40 AM
Is protecting ones people also mean insuring that the economy stays strong?

Does the constitution guarantee the same liberties to those of foreign countries?

The country is getting in a worse situation day after day (I have seen many minimum wage paying jobs around my area go out of business - hurts the older folk living pay check to pay check and it hurts the students in colleges) and if this would somehow in the short or long haul help our economic situation by allowing taxes to go to useful things, or cheaper gas prices, or preventing higher gas prices, then so be it.

I am not an Iraqi and I have never done any type of field research so I do not know the true position of the general Iraqi population. If this plan was talked about at all from the start, either in an implied way or written we DO deserve oil - maybe not penny for penny unless that was discussed too.

If the case is that it was not discussed and we are now wanting a large share of their oil, the question in my mind is if we truly put Iraq back on its feet for a successful future then yes we still deserve it.

If the situation is worse than before we went in, then no, we do not get any. I do not believe that is the case.

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 09:56 AM
The Iraqis didn't ask for the US to invade, and while I believe it was the right thing to do, it is wrong to ask them to pay up, surely the dead families in Iraq are price enough for the Iraqi people.

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 10:16 AM

Originally posted by Jezus
Do you deserve someone's wallet after you have savagely beaten them?

You do if you take them to hospital - apparently

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 10:18 AM
I wouldn't say that the USA deserves any type payment, but it would be a nice thing/generous thing for the newly formed Iraqi government to do.

Sort of a kind gesture.

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 10:19 AM
No, not one drop. There still is not a cohesive reason why
we (the US) are over there in the first place as faux reason
changes nearly every year.

[edit on 11/1/2009 by toochaos4u]

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 10:38 AM
Oil is the reason they are over there in the first place.. so in my opinion. America doesn't deserve anything. They all want oil and im am hoping Iraq does not give it to them.

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 11:03 AM
I was against the war and still am to this day but the fact is it happened and we need to be compensated. Thats just how the world works and that is what you call the spoils of war. Pay us back at least what we put into it no interest or extras needed.

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 11:31 AM
Good thing I'm not Dictorate of the US of A.
First off, let's consider how we got there. It's an inland country, which required us to pass over, waters, lands, and airspaces owned by other countries. We could not have done so without their consent or blessing, even if it was simply by their act of saying and doing nothing about it, so, they share in the blame and therefore we weren't entirely uninvited even if it was only Iraq that didn't invite us.
Secondly, Let's consider that we did what we did and allow that we didn't ask the Iraqi consent, therefore, why are we obligated to do so now?
I would put a lien against Iraq and all of it's assets and holdings. I would require a 20- 40yr. period of return on our investment. After such reasonable period, considering they have a 56 Billion + net worth surplus, I'd start with that. If the time elapses and no sufficient return, that is, at the least, one half to one third of our overall investment, I would liquidate their holdings and assets while retaining a lien against the remainder until either all debts are satisfied, or, if it's determined the debt cannot be satisfied, I would take possesion of Iraq to make it a US of A and alter it's Constitution and laws accordingly.
No one asks to invade a Country. They certainly don't ask to take one over. While it may be argued that the US of A is itself a debtor nation, I would challenge anyone, what with all of it's nukes, etc. to really consider how likely this scenario would be applied to the USA itself. People forget, ultimately we are all barbarians in the end. Civility is just a mask we wear to pretend we were right for being barbaric in the first place. There would be no negotiation. Repay the debt or be taken over.
Personally, I feel only the ruling nobles would have issue with this. The people have been brainwashed to believe that they are supposed to enrich the few. See how long they retain that doctrine when you enrich the masses instead.
There is only so much money in the world and everyone wants some. If you make more, it becomes less valuable. If you make less, the world becomes more hostile for it. The only way, as Bill Cooper points out, to balance the books is through open ended projects and war creates that, further, it allows you to kill the creditors. The less people, the less hands are out to be paid.
Law is without conscience. Iraq is a house. The USA is a hostile banker. Pay the mortgage or be forclosed and let the bank take ownership of the house. It's pretty straight forward. Iraq may not have asked for the USA to invade, but, it assented when it took our money willingly as a result, which made an implied and binding agreement.
Sound ruthless? That's real politics for you. Too bad logic will be displaced by sentiments which cast common sense aside for the intangible idea of common decency. Sorry so cynical, it's one of them days. Ask me tommorow and you might get a 360 degree turn on my response.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by PhyberDragon]

[edit on 11-1-2009 by PhyberDragon]

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 11:50 AM
reply to post by Keyhole

Sorry to bring this to the OP but its not US the one that can tell Iraqis what to do with their resources and it wasn't the Iraqis living in Iraq the ones that beg America to invade and "liberate" Iraq is was mostly the exiles the ones that were doing the campaign.

So is up to the government of Iraq to decide if they want to give away a piece of the resources to the US or not.

So far no amount of lobbyist and under the table tax payer money that US lobbyist are using to lure Iraqi politicians to give away to their demands is working at all.

Status of forces agreetment

[edit on 11-1-2009 by marg6043]

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 12:20 PM

Originally posted by David9176
The only thing we deserve is the hatred we are receiving from the rest of the world. We've earned it...actually our government earned it for the citizens will be held responsible for it even though so many are against it.'s almost impossible not to get angry if you look at what our country has done and is doing.

It's not your Citizens the rest of the world have a problem with, rest assured I for one feel sorry for them because they clearly oppose (well most of them) what is and has been going on

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 12:41 PM
As a citizen of the USA who has been against the war since talk about it began after 9/11/01, I am of the opinion that all profits resulting from the war, including oil profits, should be given to the Iraqis who have suffered and died under U.S. invasion and occupation.

With outdated Iraqi Health Ministry death estimates ranging from 151,000 to 400,000 dead resultant from the war to other estimates ranging in the millions of dead, the restitution won't go very far, but I feel its the least the Iraqis should get. This of course doesn't even include wounded statistics of which I cannot find much in the way of any numbers.

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 12:51 PM
Now that Saddam Hussein is gone, maybe we should be funding them rather than Isreal,,,,who oppresses them. Do we get any oil from ISREAL??? We should rather be funding Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Iran or where ever the oil comes from if we are expecting any nice deals from them rather than to expect a bullet through the head or a plane through the office or anthrex through the mail. Let's be a little nicer next time. Remember the Golden Rule.

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 01:07 PM
Well, I think I'll put it this way.

If 1 of my neighbors thought my grass was getting too long, and decided to come over to my house and cut my grass 1 day. If they tried to bill me, I wouldn't pay it.

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 01:11 PM
I am amazed at some of the view points on this question. Whether or not you agree on the reasons why we are there or if Iraq wanted us there or not, we have invaded and conquered that country, period. Simply put, we do have the right to assume any and all assets we choose. If we wanted, we could put down an American flag and make it another state and not be concerned about fair, just and righteous actions.

Now, the reality is that America has a history of being just to countries that we have defeated and put processes in place to better their county and the world (we try with good intentions). I believe there is a win win for all involved and it does include Iraq paying for some of the costs. If they have a windfall, then yes, it should go to offset the costs involved in liberating their country. And let us not forget the human cost in blood that was spilled all over their land, the fatherless children, widows , and innocent children that have paid the highest cost for this action will never be repaid for their losses.

So, if you reading anything about the economy recently you know we are in an unprecedented deficient. We have always been a nation of giving and helping those in need. Now we need help, so yes yes and definitely yes, they should help us recover some of the costs!

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 01:47 PM
The grass cutting analogy is too black and white and simple.

This is more like a child that has an abusive parent, that you save from possible death or danger. When that abusive parent came across the street to threaten everyone else in the neighborhood--then you have to do something. You don't steal the child's future, but you do try to recoup some of the resources you put in to saving that child.

I think there's a difference between "taking oil" and building a partnership with the Iraqi people so that we can purchase their oil at a reduced price. We have built schools and helped out with the infrastructure. We didn't just invade, kill, pillage, and leave.

Saddam was a nut--as close to a mini-Hitler as you could get and probably worse in some aspects. The Iraqi people hopefully will get along and realize they have a chance to become very well off as they build relationships with the rest of the world.

I think this is more of a gray area answer then the black and white one some are trying to turn this into.

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 01:53 PM
If the US does get some money for this, shouldn't the UK aswell, cause after all we invaded aswell.

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 02:06 PM
This thread is grotesque and sums up the global distaste of the US.

That palate shrinking metallic cringe one gets from sucking on a copper pipe comes to mind when reading such mindless musings.


<< 1    3 >>

log in